Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is utilized by professional and collegiate sports teams and the military for the prevention of musculoskeletal injuries. Hypothesis: The FMS demonstrates good interrater and intrarater reliability and validity and has predictive value for musculoskeletal injuries. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using a computerized search of the electronic databases MEDLINE and ScienceDirect in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Extracted relevant data from each included study were recorded on a standardized form. The Cochran Q statistic was utilized to evaluate study heterogeneity. Pooled quantitative synthesis was performed to measure the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interrater and intrarater reliability, along with 95% CIs, and odds ratios with 95% CIs for the injury predictive value for a score of ≤14. Results: Eleven studies for reliability, 5 studies for validity, and 9 studies for the injury predictive value were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria; of these, 6 studies for reliability and 9 studies for the injury predictive value were pooled for quantitative synthesis. The ICC for intrarater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92) and for interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.92). The odds of sustaining an injury were 2.74 times with an FMS score of ≤14 (95% CI, 1.70-4.43). Studies for validity demonstrated flaws in both internal and external validity of the FMS. Conclusion: The FMS has excellent interrater and intrarater reliability. Participants with composite scores of ≤14 had a significantly higher likelihood of an injury compared with those with higher scores, demonstrating the injury predictive value of the test. Significant concerns remain regarding the validity of the FMS.
Bonazza et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: